Will Things Change After Iraqi Elections?

Re “Which Way Out?” editorial, Jan. 27: U.S. officials say American troops will stay until Iraq can protect itself. But since President Bush also has said that the election will create an independent Iraqi democratic government, how will that operate? If the new Iraqi leader says the U.S. troops should leave Iraq, the Bush administration will claim the election was not valid. If the new Iraqi leader says the troops should continue their “occupation duties,” then the world will see the new leader as our puppet reporting to the White House.

Roy Richardson

Huntington Beach

*

Is it courage or cowardice that compels Bush to ask Iraqis to “defy these terrorists” and go to the polls? Shallow bravado from one who’s the most protected on the planet, no?

Philip J. Hilow

Sunland

*

In his article on the Iraqi elections (Commentary, Jan. 23), David Hirst gets it, but only takes things so far. An equally important factor you hear little discussion about is who exactly it is the Iraqi people will be empowering when they turn out to vote, and how that reflects on our claims that we are “democratizing” Iraq.

It would appear that fundamentalist and theocratic Shiite factions under the spiritual aegis of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani will win hands down, particularly with the minority Sunnis sitting it out. That this can be interpreted as a victory for democracy is a mystery. To me the issue is not only how many people will vote, or how this will affect the situation within the region, but who the Iraqi people will be empowering with their vote. That our sacrifice as evinced by American military casualties could well have contributed to the creation of yet another anti-West and medieval fundamentalist Islamic regime is a bitter irony. That we could have blundered into a situation that will serve only to strengthen our long-standing foes in Iran and elsewhere is almost incomprehensible.

John Crawford

Sierra Madre

*

The borders will be sealed, travel limited and a three-day curfew imposed for the Iraqi elections. Is that the “freedom” Bush is talking about?

Jerry M. Moore

Los Angeles

*

I enjoyed the first two paragraphs of Joel Pett’s “War Baby” piece (Opinion, Jan. 23). Then I read this: “Antiwar cartoonists, like the rest of the L-world, are painted into a corner in which to win is to lose.” How dare he? I’m not a liberal cartoonist, but I am a liberal -- and I’m hoping the vote goes well. I know that no matter how well or badly it goes, Bush will declare victory, claim democracy is on the march and complain about any story printed or aired that says otherwise.

The right-wing echo chamber will, well, echo that sentiment, and a portion of the American public will believe it, independent of how true or untrue it might be. So, I’m certainly not going to waste my time hoping for anything other than a successful election turnout in Iraq. Second, surely anyone who’s been following what’s going on in Iraq, who’s seen the pictures and read the stories, hopes the vote goes well. Please, dear God, give us this one day without bloodshed.

Lynn Evans

Torrance

*

Let’s end this madness. Thirty-one American kids killed in a helicopter crash on the same day as six others were killed by insurgents (Jan. 27). For what? President Bush says, “It is the long-term objective ... to spread freedom.” Freedom from what? Certainly not fear of brutality. We know now that the regime we’ve put into power is illegally detaining its citizens, as the last one did.

If Bush really cared for his country, he would pull out all the troops today and require that we drive hybrid or hydrogen cars by some realistic target date. Let the Arabs sell their oil to each other.

Brooks W. Wilson

Rancho Cucamonga